Yup, pretty much. I didn't say anyone has to like it, but that's what it comes down to. Just like the opening scene of TDK is contrived to show that The Joker is a maniacal genius that can recruit professionals for a bank job without them ever seeing him in person, secretly turn them all against each other, miraculously time a bus crashing through the bank, mysteriously change hair colors and then get away in a bus that drives out the side of a bank in broad daylight. That would be completely over the top in a regular heist movie, but we immediately accept it. Why? Because he's The Joker. He's special, and we as an audience are already bringing that to the table.

The Joker > John Blake

Speaking of which, I think Joel Schumacher and Co. handled Robin better than Nolan and Co. did (as far as Batman Forever goes anyway). And that notion has nothing to do with names or comic accuracy. They could have called Blake Dick Grayson for all I care, the characterization they gave us on film was a mess and actually took away from other, better characters as far as I'm concerned.

Speaking of which, I think Joel Schumacher and Co. handled Robin better than Nolan and Co. did (as far as Batman Forever goes anyway). And that notion has nothing to do with names or comic accuracy. They could have called Blake Dick Grayson for all I care, the characterization they gave us on film was a mess and actually took away from other, better characters as far as I'm concerned.

Batman Forever is actually precisely why I was glad we didn't get a traditional Robin original tale, with Wayne adopting an orphan and all the rest. For all that movie's shortcomings, the handling of the Grayson story is definitely one of the saving graces. That, and I never wanted to see a Robin suiting up alongside Batman in the Nolanverse.

2) Right when Bruce Wayne (the wealthiest person in Gotham) comes back, Batman starts shortly after
Right when Bruce Wayne becomes a recluse (after TDK), Batman is also a recluse
3) Right after Bruce Wayne attends a public charity event (with the town talking about it), Batman comes back

2. I don't think BB really establishes how long that preparation montage really took in real life, though. What if it was half a year or something?
Bruce Wayne only becomes a recluse after that clean energy project fails, while Batman I believe really hadn't made an appearence since then. (And even if he did, shouldn't have been at the same time regardless)
3. Yeah

For all the "realism" these movies have "grounded" their story in, the plot and general storytelling style still heavilty run on magical thinking / daydream fulfillment - so they just don't give all too much thought to stuff like that. The way Bruce/Batman emerge roughly at the same time just fits the rhythm of the movie, and the way the viewer is rooting for Bruce to return and start making changes - what the world thinks of it, why they don't just put 2 and 2 together, seems to be of secondary importance at best.
I'm not even sure if that's a "bad" thing really - these movies are still fast and loose escapist entertainment mostly focused on tone and emotions, so maybe those breaks from reality ultimately just really serve the tone the movies were going for? Maybe at some point in the future, someone will decide to make an ultra-realistic Batman movie, really trying to make it as believable as possible, and then it turns out to be really awesome - but these Nolan movies are still, to a considerable degree, fantastical in nature.

However, I'm by no means saying that this excuses EVERY plot hole in these movies, and the third one is really the one where these problems begin to compound on the movie to a palpable degree, and it starts showing cracks.
It doesn't really help that while BB had its "simplistic origin story" tone to fall back on, and TDK was this nightmarish descent into madness that hardly left the viewer a break in the midst its breathless pace, this last one really kinda shines a giant spotlight on its own problems by presenting itself as the "be-all end-all epic conclusion of the saga wrapping everything together" that it kinda is. Yea, your wrap-up at the Italian coffeehouse there kinda feels like a surreal daydream, as does the rest of the movie - was that really the intention? I kinda doubt it.

Case in point:

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

To me most of us and most of Gotham should have too. What's unbelievable is how nobody else figures it out. NOT that Blake did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazuki

"Even in TDKR though, there was no point where a civilian or officer would take a close-up picture of Batman's face. [...]"

Really? Surrounded by cops, lights and helicopter, no one could have taken any kind of footage? What about street cameras? Geez, you really underestimate today´s technology and the police force. And you really have to, in order to believe Batman could actually exist.

Yes, you see, when the first movie came on the scene, it established certain rules of suspension of disbelief that were easy to follow - just like Superman and his glasses (and, admittedly, pretty ****ing masterful changes in body language and facial expression), you just kinda accept that in this made-up world, no one recognizes a person based on his jawline; you roll with it just like you might roll with theatrical conventions such as masks or "surreptitious winks" when watching certain kinds of plays, and still take the rest more or less at face value.
Because really, why does he show off a half of his face? To be able to make an angry fury face at Flass? Fine, but that might also kinda defeat the whole "is he really a human" angle that seemed so successful at instilling at least irrational fear in his victims. The movie's not clear on it, but either interpretation - that the people here have inferior facial recognition skills, or that he's "really" wearing a mask over his whole face, or maybe with some black war paint all over it (that fear toxin version sure looked loads scarier than the actual one), and only looks the way he does "to the audience" for stylistic purposes - can just be accepted for the rest of the flick without creating any problems otherwise.

The people not making the sort of connections pointed out above? Established, let's move on - so maybe they're all distracted, or there's lots of billionaires travelling about all the time. Who cares - it does pull the movie a bit away from realistic towards the make-believe, but you just roll with it and move on: they don't make the connection, and that's it really.

The problems only really start when the story begins to BREAK its own rules. Like Lois suddenly noticing that Clark kinda looks like Superman in Superman II... yeah, really? Or in this case, some employee just finding a whole open archive containing all of Batman's well-kept secrets, and one special orphan recognizing more than just a scarred orphan in a particularly rich orphan.

Things fall apart - get surreal. They make you question the conventions you'd just been swallowing all this time without wasting much thought on it, shine a giant light on their questionability, and, well, a “flaw” emerges.
So now maybe you see how your whole point about everyone else not figuring it out like these two being the real problem, rather than these two figuring it out being the problem, is the true problem - it WASN'T a problem before the story committed the mistake of breaking its own rules, and made it into one. It's kind of almost like that bit in the Neverending Story novel - a minute ago the desert didn't exist, but now it does, and has been existing for eons; a moment ago, Batman's indetectability was a given.. now it's been a giant plot hole all along.
And if instead you cling to the previously established rule due to how engagingly it was presented, well, then Reese and Blake seem absurd (Blake either way )! No matter which angle you choose to look at it from, the picture no longer fits together.

(The answer to your question why the cops didn't take a picture?
If this were the real Batman, or a truly realistic movie this kind of scrutiny actually wouldn't be wasted on, he would be concealing his whole face (unless he already does it ), and there would be (=is) nothing to take.

Hey, why didn't Bruce come up with a better escape plan than just turn off the lights and fly into a giant open cave near the freeway? What if some helicopters shone a spotlight on him? Cause it's the Batmobile, and he's just brilliant and slippery like that - end of story. Good enough for this movie )

So, Coleman Reese… he’s not that great. Doesn’t make too much sense if you really look at it.
While the specifics of how Wayne and his triumvirate managed to keep their project a complete secret, ordering small but still fairly… recognizeable components from different companies and whatnot, certainly can be called into question when it comes to their plausibility – what matters is that in the movie’s plot, they *worked*.
And were probably bound to work from the beginning, given how, right after Alfred scrapped his plans to call the shrinks, he and Bruce must have sat down and discussed the feasibility of such a project – and arrived at the conclusion that, yes, it was pretty much feasible, before actually starting to work on all the equipment.
Well, at least the equipment that hadn’t already been produced long time ago, but surely the two have covered all the risks of someone exposing those connections before deciding to include the tumbler in their arsenal – and if there were any holes left that, say, only Fox could take care of, well, Fox sure must’ve covered those up after joining the team. If it weren’t for that, the secret wouldn’t be safe – and given how they decided to use it, and remained super confident about its secrecy the whole time after that, it obviously was.

So, all of a sudden, some guy comes along and cracks said reliably hidden secret…
Oops! What just happened?
Apparently, the blueprints are still available after all – and not just anywhere, but in a place a fiduciary working for the company easily had access to! Fox, having apparently done nothing to close this giant security leak, doesn’t have any qualms whatsoever about ordering said fiduciary to do exactly the kinds of research that would lead him to places where he could find the blueprints, or UNNECESSARILY TELLING HIM TO DO SAID RESEARCH AGAIN. Wow, certainly testing the odds there isn’t he… but no worries, if someone should (likely) find out about it, he still can threaten them with Batman and all is well, right! Well… why exactly? Yea, Reese doesn’t do anything to disprove his assumption that he won’t just go tell the police (or the mob for that matter) – but he totally could, because with Fox/Wayne arrested/under surveillance/killed, there wouldn’t be any possibility for Wayne OR Batman to come after him. Oops!
What, he won’t because Enterprises pays him well, even without the blackmail? Yea, let’s just bet on that and go back to reading the paper with a smile of smug self-satisfaction. He and the rest of the triumvirate will remain as unworried and confident about the safety of their secret as they’ve been the entire time before this incident until Reese unexpectedly decides to spill the beans anyway – and once he doesn’t, forget about it again.

So no, nothing is alright with the Reese subplot - the ease with which he's able to stumble upon the secret (and with that, the question why no one else has so far), as well as Fox’ frivolous attitude toward this incredibly serious problem, does srs harm to that scene’s believability, almost to the point of making it appear completely farcical.

However, the way it’s written and acted is quite entertaining in itself, and it also obviously serves its role as a chess piece in the rather delicious web of set-ups and pay-offs that is that movie’s plot – and with the frantic, driving pace and atmosphere of this movie doing its best to distract and engage the viewer, one is easily seduced to simply appreciate this scene for how inconspicuously and “elegantly” it sets up a completely awesome plotline later in the film, instead of despairing of its complete and utter lack of sense.
That and, as another user has already pointed out, if you take this scene as an intentional, (not-so-)subtle jab at the series’ own logic, that certainly can’t hurt your enjoyment/appreciation of it. Might make you frown a bit at the movie for breaking its believability like this, but still take it with a grain of sugar.

That last one, of course, in no way applies to its TDKR’s counterpart – there isn’t a shred of self-irony in that one; it’s played completely straight.
The tone of that scene is dramatic, serious, and of course totally emotional – a much frailer shield against merciless scrutiny than irony and humour. But… still one that often works, and that’s why I really can’t hold it in the same contempt as many others here.

No, it doesn’t really make sense, and yes, you can make up a bunch of fill-in-the-blanks-off-screen-**** to explain it away but that’s technically apologetics isn’t it?
But it can work as a vicarious wish fulfilment and that way appeal to the emotional side of the viewer – causing them to ignore, or even appreciate its lack of logic. See, Bruce can’t share his secret with anyone and puts on a mask all the time – he has to, the secret can’t get out by any means, and yet it’s entirely possible that some part of him (and/or, vicariously, the viewer’s) has a desire for someone, preferably someone he can relate to, someone upright and admirable rather than a bullsh** jerk, to just see through the mask and recognize his true self, breaking the ice to speak. Same with Blake - he “recognizes” his idol in someone he can relate to, *by* relating to him, and now starts “mattering” to said idol and their common ideals by telling him he knows and understands.
There’s the relief aspect, finding someone you can relate and talk to, a bit of mentor/apprentice fantasy (no, not that one), the general w&f appeal of meaningful coincidences and ambiguous “psychic connections”, and all delivered with convincing acting and a slightly dream-like atmosphere – enough to get a viewer “hooked”. And once they’re hooked, that’s where their brains can start making excuses and filling in the blanks, not to “justify” it as a competent, thought-out creator decision, but simply, provided there’s a need for that in the first place, in order to buy what’s happening more easily.
Subtext (Blake really meaning that he’s done some research/observation based on that initial hunch, but finding no need to spell it out / trying to grab Bruce emotionally at first), slight dishonesty (saying he knew already back then, but actually just having confirmed his growing suspicions when Alfred let him in), off-screen dialogue (Blake proceeds to explain the rest to him in the car), you name it – anything that COULD’VE happened behind the scenes, or between the lines, and thus elevated this plot point to a level of possibility/plausibility. And when there’s a desire to buy something, that’s often all it takes.

(Oh, but seriously **** the question which of the kids came up with “Batman” in its brown buttocks – who cares?! Once you’re in the game of making up “stories” and “legends” about one particular person, Batman is one of the very few masked celebrities in town and can't really be that far from the top of the list either way; guessing who Batman is, much more difficult, but the other way around? Gimme a fking break – Blake came up with it, other kids came up with it and that gave him the needed hunch, the point is once that idea sat there in head he immediately realized its veracity, and for that he had no frggin reason)

But when returning to the discussion about whether “Nolan” was “justified” to just put it in there, not dropping a single word about anything that could possibly remove the sheer absurdity from Blake’s story as taken at face value, or, God forbid, whether it is actually absurd when taken at face value (yes it is), obviously that kind of reasoning isn’t really valid – because who’s to say the authors gave it anywhere this much thought, if there’s really no evidence for that in the movie?

Me personally, I kinda saw both sides – saw the emotional appeal, from a bit of a distance I guess, but was also thrown off by how little sense it made. Watching the movie with my monkey brain though, as usual, I really just took it for what it essentially was – a fairly engaging scene that establishes a character relationship / introduces Blake to the “in-the-know protagonist team” and influences the plot in the way it does – and just went along with the flow; the movie hadn’t thrown me off the rails yet (that came laturr – when Alfred left) and felt, well, fairly engaging so far, so I just swallowed it and didn’t mind.
The thing, to come back to it once more, and largely also the problem with TDKR is that it’s generally further removed from “realism” (i.e. a realistic way in which events unfold, characters act etc.) than the two previous ones – and while those were still believable enough to “buy into”, the first as a real-feeling heroic tale and the second as an even more real-feeling world devolving into somewhat of a nightmare (which just might be the way the characters in it feel like), this one has several scenes in it where it really starts to slip and feeling more like a dream/fantasy than a realistic story.

It starts right at the beginning, with the rather unexpected time leap – that takes place DURING THE OPENING SCENE! A “flashback” to Gordon’s TDK speech, followed by the Bane scene – in the story, a new threat that comes to haunt the now established peace with Gordon’s lie as a background, hence the flashback, but when watching the movie? By opening with a TDK shot, the movie just reinforces the viewer’s assumption that Gotham is roughly in the state you expect it to be based on how that movie ended, and keeps up that assumption for entire 5 minutes before, oops, I guess things are completely different now! So… Bane’s not coming to fuel the mob / Joker chaos, then?
This, and the questionable nature of those developments (especially Bruce’s retirement), make it feel off, weird, like it’s taking place in some alternate reality or something. Yea… all the mafia is gone, isn’t that wonderful? Sounds a bit too good to be true? Then Gordon starts speaking, and the scene has that kind of dream-like atmosphere to it, just like that fade-in fade-out flashback from 5 minutes ago, and it’s done – the movie’s gotten up on the wrong side of the bed (if it’s gotten up at all… Inception!!1!).

But then we kind of start get used to this new world, the characters discuss some of the backstory and it all seems to make sense in the end – looks like the movie’s getting back on trac- ohhhhh wait the new cop’s here and he knows who Bruce is. Yeaaahh… it’s just his fever dream isn’t it.
After that, weird things keep piling up – Alfred gets completely out-of-character, as does Bruce, they have an inexplicable fall-out (notice the dream-like I mean emotional lighting in that scene); then our hero suddenly gets to play with two new fantasy girlfriends, one of whom he starts impressing with his two alter egos and somehow inexplicably gets away with it (so much for the “Blake couldn’t have seen a close-up photograph” argument huh), and the other just suddenly sleeps with him after suddenly stopping by his house.
Some Like it Hot meets Alone in the Dark?

Some strange “clean-slate device” that everyone talks about, and Bruce Wayne somehow “has”… don’t explain anything, he just does. His subconscious dreams it up, and he then just fills it with… wait, no.
Something that looks like the well he fell in as a kid, and somehow has bats in it even though there haven’t been any bats around since the first movie… well, the whole prison and revolution threads actually feel very tangible, I can totally buy all the stuff that goes on in Gotham etc., but then Alfred has his surreal café thing, the rookie becomes the new Batman, and you finally understand what’s going on here – Batman came back home that night, exhausted, and burdened by this new conspiracy he’s now part of, plunged down on his decadent billionaire couch and fell into a deep, deeper sleep in front of some damn good TV.

What happens when he wakes up? Hopefully a much better movie.

So, in conclusion, you can really make of Blake what you will – yes, it’s nonsensical and surreal, but then the whole movie is a bit like that, so does that make it fit in with the rest? Or should this “rest” have never been there in the first place, as it drags down the movie and probably wasn’t really intended to end up this way either?
I’m more in the latter camp here – each time some of that weird **** appears on the screen, the movie goes to die. All I wanted to see was Bane and his revolution. and some much, much better cartilage filling up the rest than what ended up in the movie; much like like DK
That one, you could theoretically watch all Joker scenes on youtube (edited together as they tend to be), and then, curious how it’s all connected together, watch the whole movie, and be blown away by all the tense stuff that happens inbetween, how tight the structure is and how well it balances its trump card with all the rest. The way it mfking builds up to the party crash… omg.
Here, you’ve got Bane giving an awesome captivating speech and you’re totally into it, and then it keeps cutting to Gordon and Levitt having an awkward joke of an argument in front of the TV. MEH.

Yet people come on here and act like it's a big deal. Well I don't see people complaining who are non readers of the comics. I see a pattern.

Hi, non-reader of the comics here.
I only read the Killing Joke so far, and that was after watching TDK

Found it cheesy and nonsensical overall, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

It's funny how I see the film with anybody who isn't a hardcore Bat fan/comic fan...people who watch all kinds of other films that range from dramas to action to artsy films, well written, well directed movies and they ALL thought the scene was very logical and wonderful.

Look, if they just thought it was "wonderful", then fine... artsy movies don't always have logical plots either, and maybe they didn't have high standards going into a comicbook movies (not knowing that this one had kinda set those).
Maybe they're used to films where everything has to be read out of / into the subtext, and just assumed it to be the case here, as well (oh wait they watch action movies... cut that last part).
But if they actually thought it was LOGICAL, then they really can't have been all that bright.

Quote:

He doesn't mean Batman. The kid has had years to put 2 and 2 together, to think on the suspicion, to investigate even as a cop. I find it funny when people don't understand this.

"Understand"? More like assume - for in order to "understand" it, it first must definitely be in the work, which it's not

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

I mean, these are people who are basically watching films that are probably less fantastical by nature...

So why did they buy something this fantastical then

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

When bold filmmakers like Burton (early in his career) change things but do it so it's out of the realm of belief to the point where the comics feel more grounded, like his butchered Penguin-man, then yeah it's ridiculous because it's not taken seriously.

A Burton fever dream being less grounded than a comic book... now that's a revelation

I dunno man... despite the obvious "camp" and endless comedy in Returns, there's something oddly earnest and solemn about most of the crazy **** in it... it's not just the "ridiculousness" of the naked "idea" itself (Penguin man in sewers with penguins and clown gang), it's also the way it's presented - and there sure is lots of emotion and melancholy in its presentation

Btw... Batman just takes off his mask in front of Walken, despite wanting him to survive and go to jail, but no one ****ing cares - this movie is fantastical and surreal, so it fits right in.

Watching less fantastical movies like TDKR certainly doesn't prevent people from finding it "wonderful", and getting "invested in the emotion"... why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

whose only attachment is seeing a good story with emotion

Fixed

Quote:

It's just hilarious to me.

You mean In a nervous way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

@JackWhite, that was epic.

Yup, pretty much. I didn't say anyone has to like it, but that's what it comes down to. Just like the opening scene of TDK is contrived to show that The Joker is a maniacal genius that can recruit professionals for a bank job without them ever seeing him in person, secretly turn them all against each other, miraculously time a bus crashing through the bank, mysteriously change hair colors and then get away in a bus that drives out the side of a bank in broad daylight. That would be completely over the top in a regular heist movie, but we immediately accept it. Why? Because he's The Joker. He's special, and we as an audience are already bringing that to the table.

Lol, the Joker’s exceptionality was shown by his actions – in Blake’s case, with a plot-given psychic insta-insight.
Now to the extent that the Joker’s foresight, and insight into people’s psyche, might seem a little supernatural – I think it’s well-known that he was supposed to come off as somewhat of a “force of nature”, and from what I get people generally receive that part favourably. It makes him feel scarier, more mysterious, invincible, unpredictable etc., EXACTLY WHAT HE’S SUPPOSED TO BE, and still always in ways that only slightly border on the psychic, never really leaving the ground.
And that’s the real question really – does Blake’s supernatural wish fulfilment aura seem appropriate to you? In terms of his everyman role, and general down-to-earth, rational character throughout the rest of the movie? Or maybe not so much after all?

And personally, I find the scene between Blake and Gordon to be a very powerful one. And I'm totally on Gordon's side in it. That's what's compelling about it though, they're both right and they're both wrong. A fine tribute to the moral complexity of TDK's ending.

No... just no. Second ****ing worst scene in whole movie!

They're both acting completely out of character throughout that whole awkward exchange, it's incomprehensible. Boy where to start with this one... okay, so what exactly is Blake so pissed at? That Gordon had been lying about Batman all this time? But listen, didn't it clearly say in the letter that Batman “took the blame” for Dent’s crimes? Looks like it was their mutual decision, rather than Gordon’s transgression against Batman, and even if Blake somehow didn't catch that part, Gordon could've easily filled him in.
But what does he do instead? Start justifying to Blake why he agreed to work with a vigilante?? Hello, didn't Blake kind of seem to be a total Batman fanboy all this time, and even now apparently, so why assume he's angry about that part oooooh wait he says "your hands are quite dirty to me"... wait what?
Gordon talks about keeping his own (law-bound) hands clean with the (off-the-books, independently acting) Batman doing the dirty work. So Blake means his hands are still dirty for collaborating with Batman? Wait no that’s ****ing stupid, he's really just being clever and means the other thing, not the one about Gordon working together with Batman but the other one, the one about him keeping up the lie, right?

Nah, wait, that one still doesn't make sense I forgot... but hold on a second, earlier he also says "you betrayed everything you stood for"... yea, what? Listen pal, you're new to the team, just let Gordon fill you in about the whole situation first before immediately jumping to conclusions okay, oh wait, that one's kind of got other things on his mind doesn't he... okay, look, what exactly did he betray that he supposedly “stood for”? Can’t have been his honesty and integrity, as he had already worked a lot with dirty cops and then an outlaw… can’t have been Batman (a, not “everything” he stood for, b, it was Batman’s ****ing idea)… wait, don’t tell me, it’s his commitment to clean up the city, oh wait he kinda totally did exactly that by lying about Dent. Okay, I give up then.
Next, he says “Gotham needs a hero now more than ever”… fine, Blake, what hero? Can’t be Dent, that’s a no-brainer; can’t be Batman, as he was just redeemed by Bane in front of the public, and Blake knows it’s Catwoman’s fault that he’s not here now, not Gordon’s… could it be Gordon himself, given their plans for him to get in front of a camera? Ah, so Gordon betrayed himself, yeah. Awesome. Cause he totally should’ve foreseen that someone would steal his letter and spill the beans in all the wrong ways.
Oh, but he did RISK such a situation, didn’t he? And now he can't be the town’s hero anymore… well, back then it had to be Clean Harvey and not some mustached cop working with shady fellas, and an idol was kind of needed then… but fine, let’s say it wasn’t and the public could’ve done without Harvey at their shrine, but now it somehow really needs Gordon… why does BLAKE get pissed at him for that? He just tried to play into the crowd’s psychology and made a miscalculation, but sure the reasonable enlightened folks like Blake can understand that? He didn’t make any transgression against him, or morality for that matter, just tried to inspire the crowd and overlooked something (he didn’t).

Oh wait, no, what about the poor prisoners who have been denied parole… based on a *lie*? Oh god no, the poor genuine criminals who couldn’t appeal to corrupt officials on mafia payroll, how UNJUST! So that’s who he betrayed then? But who’s the hero then??
Come on… no, just no. It can’t have been “based on the lie” entirely – the lie only served as inspiration, and only was there to replace the actual Dent and what he might’ve done if he’d stayed sane and alive, anyway. The justification for the “Act” still had to come from some place of reason as it would've then, like, I dunno, preventing corrupt officials on the mafia payroll from freeing their thugs? Or what was the Act about, again?

Oh, and what does Gordon’s response have to do with that aspect, then? The poor prisoners… Gotham needed hero… keep your hands clean. What?

Blehhh…. it’s like they’re both playing transzendenZ, and suddenly the poor script takes over and makes them say idiotic, corny things until the script ends and they get to be themselves again. And Oldman aptly hams up his monologue there, too! Certainly didn’t look comfortable saying those lines to me…

So no, not a powerful scene, and not a functional set-up to that scene at the end, either – Blake was never the “idealist who believed in the system” and then got disappointed with it (and if he had been, nothing that happened in the movie could’ve made him change his mind – all the cops were good and upright, the evil came from outside; the dumbo ear cop at the bridge was just confused and they had to shout at each other over the distance, so doesn’t count, and has nothing to do with honesty/corruption anyway), he was a Batman fanboy with a moral center, who thought that Batman did the right thing back then. He knew that rules could be shackles from the very start…
And so he goes from a vigilante admirer (and instigator!) to a vigilante rookie over the course of the movie. Great!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Did you miss the part where he was wrong to judge Gordon? That's why he "retires" at the end, because he is sick of realizing the grayness and political side of law and order. But he accepts Gordon was right.

Unless you're making The Shining or Only God Forgives, you can't use "symbolism" as a major plot point. The burning bat symbol is symbolic, yes, but it's not a major plot point. The story beat is that Batman comes back, the burning bat is the symbolic icing on the cake.

Sorry, small nitpick there - the burning bat symbol wasn't symbolic, or if it was then only in addition to making sense in the actual plot, which was to inspire Gotham to take action instead of succumbing to their fear.
Yea, communicating that the bomb's going to go off regardless might've done that too, but what you're gonna do

Batman was a "symbol" to the population, yea, but really more in the sense of an idol, a semi-fantastical larger than life persona - but it's not like his Bat theme was a metaphor for the citizens to decipher or anything

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

On top of there being no payoff, I still question why people believed Bane in the first place. He has no legitimate evidence that the Dent coverup is true other than reading a letter that the Gothamites have no way of knowing whether or not Gordon wrote it. Why would anyone believe the terrorist with the bomb in the first place?

Psychology - Stockholm syndrome, or something along those line. He takes them hostage... shows them he means business, leaves them no way out... and then immediately gives them a way to survive, thrive even, assuring them that he's there to help them, and what happens? They just gather around him, and start accepting and internalizing his terms and ideas - they like what he has to say about their opportunities, they know there's no way to leave, and somewhere back in their head they may realize that if they start swimming against the stream they'll get stomped, but they'd rather repress those thoughts in order to keep up a positive impression of their current predicament and the dangerous but just alpha male on top.

Yes, he killed those football players... but that was necessary, to show THEM, the world, the government, that they meant it - ensuring that no one interfered, and hence enabled them, the citizens, to thrive and survive as promised.

I dunno, makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

The whole message behind Batman is that Bruce Wayne is literally the only man to have ever achieved the impossible: He has mastered everything there is to master and has transformed himself into a demon in human form through his sorrows. That is something no one can do. It takes a ridiculous commitment to become Batman that no person can have.

****... just wanted to say how ****ing awesome that sounds! Wish they had conveyed that better in the movies, both with the origin story as well as with the action... instead of just establishing how he was "Qui-Gon's bestest student" and then showing how he somehow figured out the magic trick of floating around dark rooms.
Yea, that stalking **** was ****ing awesome, but I wish there had been a bit more of it, as well as a bit more of a background/explanation/preparation than the "a ninja can avoid being seen" stock phrases we got instead. And when engaged in direct combat, the effects of it are seen, but the presentation doesn't exactly sell the "freak of nature genius" vibe it might have been going for... especially running with the general theme of every LoS member aside from the leaders essentially being the Stormtroopers of the Nolanverse lol.

Now that I think about it, wouldn't it have been better if they'd just scrapped the whole training plot? Made him achieve that exceptional prowess all on his own, with sheer determination... walking the earth, sampling fighting techniques and tactics, and then finally returning home as a made man, having passed some sort of test that wasn't a confusing hide and seek game in a dojo?
The much more interesting, as well as more difficult part of him sampling the "criminal world" got way of a raw deal imo, whereas the LoS plot can be easily identified as the cheesiest and most out-of-place thread in the movie, reducing the big climax to a "save everyone from mass bomb" plot device rather than something a bit more interesting.

Don't get me wrong, it's completely cool and all, stylistically and thematically, but still... also if you watch TDK, it's almost as if it pretends that this other version of the story happened instead of the real one. Not a word about ancient ninja societies or preventing fear bombs, or even the escaped prisoners if I remember correctly, and the look is obviously very dry and doesn't show even one house with gothic steam hovering above it like a nightmare, would one believe that! Watching it, it totally feels like Bruce just somehow became Batman in order to battle the mafia, and that then led to things escalating from within... without going off on a "oh and yea, meanwhile terrorists appeared and caused way more chaos than the Joker; sure must've looked like an escalation at least to the Gothamites, eh!" tangent inbetween.

So BB is some sort of an alternative antequel to Dark Knight, while TDKR the awkward alternative sequel... lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

I take issue with the idea that the "message" of the Batman story is that only Bruce Wayne could possibly muster up the will to be Batman. That seems like a hollow and circular message to send out to me. Messages in fiction should comment on aspects of life and offer something universal...not comment on themselves. What is the value of a message that says, "Only Bruce Wayne can be Batman"? What can we learn from that?

Um, not sure if "message" would be the right word, but it certainly makes for a good (and rather grabbing) *premise*.
See, we all like our ultra-exceptional "freaks of nature" - people who, due to talent, sheer determination and finding themselves in just the right circumstances, achieve something so unique and outstanding that it's said no one else has yet come close. Figures like this (or at least claimed to be this) can be found all over different arts and endeavours – like Buddy Rich with the drums, or Michael Jordan with basketball. There’s an undeniable appeal about the idea of someone like that, so what more justification does there have to be in order to make an escapist comicstrip out of that?
If there’s any “message” to be had there, one that can be transferred to real / other areas of life, I suppose it’s that sometimes, and there's no way around that, insurmountable feats like this or that really do take such a freak of nature to accomplish – it can’t be done by “you”, or “if you just really want it / work like a honest American”, and you puny normals will just have to suck it up and make do with what you actually have… which still can be quite a lot. And really, what’s the next best thing you can do other than being such an individual yourself, if not trying to stand on the shoulders of the giant (as they, at the end of the day, are most likely too)?
Sounds like a passable message to me – escapist grandiosity mixed with a humbling reality check, depending on the perspective, what more could you ask for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Really? Its a battle for Gotham's soul, as Joker explicitly says in the movie. Its when Bruce finally displays the faith in people that Rachel urged him to have. Its the crescendo of Gotham's arc in TDK, i.e. it shows that Gotham can and will be redeemed, that the dawn IS coming. Compare that to TDKR, in which Gotham isn't even a character, its just a setting.

Its more than just a prisoner's dilemma, its the climax of most of the themes of TDK and even Batman Begins (remember Ra's telling Bruce that Gotham was beyond saving?).

I find it quite an emotionally powerful sequence.

Ehhhh… I kinda see what’s honky about it, tbh.
First of all, they don’t all blow up simply due to luck / coincidence – one guy failing to go through with it at the last moment despite the majority having voted positive, and another dude playing his alpha charms at the right moment to throw away the remote. “Full of people ready to believe in good” maybe, but if the point/message is supposed to be that “the Joker is wrong and humanity is basically good at heart, as you can see at the example of these two representative representatives”, then it’s obviously kinda complete ********.
Secondly, the acting and writing, mostly just on the citizen boat – it’s not bad, and it works within its collective context and limited screen time, but it’s also hard to deny that it’s kind of a bit clichéd and corny: the things the citizens say (their “arguments”), the lines of the main angry guy who then predictably has a melodramatic change of heart, both the cops… it’s all just a little bit dodgy.
And thirdly, the whole premise kind of doesn’t add up completely – the point seems to be that it’s the good citizens on the one boat, and the expendable *******s on the other. Fine… but what about the cops on that other boat? No one ever says “they chose to murder and steal, but oh wait the cops are cool aren’t they”? So there’s a crucial piece of the puzzle just kind of glossed over for the sake of convenience (yes, you could say for psychological reasons because the people wanted to justify things to themselves or retain simplicity, but come on it was convenience).
And, on the other side, it’s of course the cops holding the trigger, not the prisoners – so why be concerned about “the evil boat” striking first, as the vibe seems to suggest? And had they kept the prisoners behind safe bars instead of in a position where they could intimidate an overwhelmed beta guard, things might have turned out quite differently, as well.

They’re all cops… could they maybe have some kind of code or guideline to follow in such a situation? Did the cops transferring the prisoners “agree to take a risk” in any way that the other ones didn’t? Or what of the corruption – it’s not TDKR yet, so some cops on either side may have been ******* criminals. How could that have played into the overall dynamics? Could they have started pushing for the explosion with the honest ones all objecting?

It’s kept very simplified, without considering any of those intrusively obvious issues, and that undermines the “point” it was trying to make to whatever degree it does. Still fine, though – things are just “distributed” between the boats a bit (cops on the one boat get more like scared for their own skin, the others rather give in to the crowd’s vote), depicts only certain main scenarios, and really why the hell not

Justpassingby, you win. I have nothing to respond with. I'm going to rethink by opinion about TDKR and then after that rethink my life. I truly feel like a better person now that I understand what doesn't work in TDKR. Many have tried, but only you sir have succeeded. I just wanted to thank you for that.

Justpassingby, you win. I have nothing to respond with. I'm going to rethink by opinion about TDKR and then after that rethink my life. I truly feel like a better person now that I understand what doesn't work in TDKR. Many have tried, but only you sir have succeeded. I just wanted to thank you for that.

The obvious sarcasm in this statement ironically confirms its accidental veracity

Justpassinby, i just want to say you are my idol and you've been able to articulate my thoughts so perfectly...lol...would like to hear your take on what was wrong with the character of bane whom i felt was held back from elevating cinematic villains to a whole new level...please! I cant sleep lol...In another thread of course because i'm invading blake (whose potential was also squandered) and reese's thread bane thread maybe or you can just ignore me but please...i cant sleep

Given my eternally burning enthusiasm for this movie's Bane, I think racking my brain over the possible sarcasm in your post can be refrained from in this case

No sarcasm here. Let me just say that my interest in bane is equivalent to a justin beiber fangirl's interest in him (justin beiber) lol but that's all he does which is spark my interest...he feels incomplete and to me they only scratched the surface in delivering a character that plunges into territories unkown....maybe it was the fault of the story which took the least creative and interesting direction leaving much to be desired imo. I have many other gripes with the movie but bane's the one that doesn't let me sleep

Heh, dunno if I can really put my finger on that, either... I think I roughly get why the "Wayne's Rocky arc" aspect of his character doesn't work (written a stupid paragraph or two about that in this post, near the end), but not sure if much more than that...